Kusam Singh & Ors. vs Raj Kumar & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 2854 Del

                                      UNREPORTED
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                 FAO 99/1995

KUSAM SINGH & ORS.                              ..... Appellants
                  Through:            Mr. Mahendra Singh, Advocate

                  versus


RAJ KUMAR & ORS.                                   ..... Respondents
                           Through:   Mr. K.L.Nandwani, Advocate
                                      for the respondent No.3
                                      Mr. J.N.Aggarwal, Advocate
                                      for the respondent No.4.

%                          Date of Decision : May 27, 2011

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
   to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                           J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants for

enhancement of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal by its judgment and award dated

12.01.1995 passed in Suit No.157 of 1987, whereby and whereunder,

the appellants were held entitled to an award of ` 3,84,000/ with

interest thereon, for the untimely demise of Sh. Vijay Vir Singh

(hereinafter referred as "the deceased" ) in a motor vehicular accident,

which took place on 7.3.1987.

2. The brief facts relevant for the decision in the present case are

that on the date of the accident the deceased was aged 35 years and

was working as a teacher (Trained Graduate Teacher) at Government

Co-Education Senior Secondary School, Rashtrapati Bhawan on a

salary of Rs 2,345/-per month. On his accidental death, a claim

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed

by the widow, parents and two minor children of the deceased, who

are the appellants No.1 to 5 herein. The Claims Tribunal for the

purpose of calculating the compensation, after considering the

evidence led in this behalf and after referring to the decision of

Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Kerala State Road

Transport Corporation, Trivandrum vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and

Others 1994 ACJ 1, took the salary of the deceased to be in sum of

` 3,000/- per month after considering the future prospects of

advancement of the deceased in his career. Deducting therefrom,

one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal and

living expenses, the learned Tribunal arrived at a sum of ` 2,000 as

the monthly loss of dependency of the claimants or ` 24,000/- as their

annual loss of dependency. To the aforesaid multiplicand, the

Tribunal applied the multiplier of 16, thereby calculating the total

compensation awardable to the appellants to be in the sum of

` 3,84,000/- (including ` 15,000/- awarded as interim compensation)

along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of

filing of the petition till the realization of the award amount.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the

aforesaid computation of compensation awarded to the appellants on

the following three grounds:

(i) The Claims Tribunal wrongly calculated the income of the

deceased to be in the sum of ` 3,000/- per month after

considering his future prospects.

(ii) The Claims Tribunal wrongly deducted one-third towards the

personal expenses of the deceased in view of the fact that the

deceased had left behind five dependant family members.

(iii) The Claims Tribunal awarded no compensation towards non-

pecuniary damages under the heads of loss of love and

affection, loss of estate of the deceased, loss of consortium and

towards the pecuniary damages for the funeral expenses of the

deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents No.3 and 4, on his

part, sought to support the award passed by the learned Tribunal.

According to him, the impugned award was passed on the basis of

documentary evidence on record and no modification thereto was

warranted either on facts or in law.

5. As regards the first submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants, it is evident from the record that the deceased was

working in Government Co-Education Senior Secondary School,

Rashtrapati Bhawan, as a Trained Graduate Teacher (T.G.T). PW10

Sh. Parduman Singh, the Principal of M.L. Govt Boys Senior

Secondary School deposed that he remained in the school of the

deceased as P.G.T. from 16.07.1984 to 30.04.1989 and proved on

record the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW10/A. As per the

said certificate, the basic pay of the deceased on the date of the

accident was ` 1,750/- per month and his total salary was ` 2,345/-

per month.

6. PW1 Raj Kumar Jain, a P.G.T. teacher in Government Senior

Secondary School, in his testimony, deposed as regards the future

prospects of the deceased, and stated that the deceased was due for

promotion as a Post Graduate Teacher (P.G.T) which is done in a

routine manner, as he was well qualified. The witness, to prove the

educational qualifications of the deceased, placed on record his mark

sheets of M.Sc and B.Ed from Agra University pertaining to the years

1974 and 1975 respectively.

7. The law as regards the computation of future prospects of a

victim of a road accident is now well settled by the Supreme Court in

its judgment rendered in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others

versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC

121, which is to the effect that as a rule of thumb where the deceased

has a permanent job and is below 40 years of age, an addition of 50%

of actual salary is to be made to the actual salary income of the

deceased towards future prospects. In this case, the deceased at the

time of his death was 35 years of age and was in a regular and stable

job. Thus, in my view, future prospects to the extent of 50% ought to

have been granted by the learned Tribunal while computing the loss

of dependency of the appellants.

8. As regards the second submission of the learned counsel of the

appellants that the learned Tribunal erred in deducting one-third of

the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses in view of

the fact that the deceased had left behind five dependent family

members who had filed the claim petition in the first instance, it has

been clearly laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) that the

deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased has

to be one-fourth in case there are 4 to 6 dependent family members.

Since there were five dependants of the deceased at the time of the

filing of the petition (though the father of the deceased died on

18.1.1995 and the mother of the deceased too died during the

pendency of the appeal), while calculating the loss of dependency of

the claimants, the learned Tribunal ought to have deducted one-fourth

of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses instead

of one-third.

9. The necessary corollary is that the compensation payable to the

appellants must be re-computed in accordance with the aforesaid

findings. Taking the income of the deceased to be in the sum of

` 2,345/- per month and adding thereto 50% towards the future

prospects of the deceased, the monthly income of the deceased for the

purpose of computing loss of dependency of the claimants comes to

` 3,517/- per month. After deducting therefrom one- fourth towards

the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of

dependency of the appellants comes to ` 2,637.75 per month or say

` 31,653/- per annum. Applying the multiplier of 16 thereto, which

multiplier is not the subject matter of controversy, the total loss of

dependency of the appellants works out to ` 5,06,448/-. In addition

to this sum, non-pecuniary damages in the sum of ` 2,000/- towards

funeral expenses, ` 2,500/- towards the loss of estate, ` 5,000/-

towards loss of consortium and ` 7,500/- towards the loss of love and

affection, that is, in all ` 17,000/- are also awarded to the appellants.

10. The appellants are accordingly held entitled to receive a sum of

` 5,23,448/- rounded off to ` 5,23,500/- with interest as awarded by

the Claims Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition, i.e.,

19.08.1987 till the date of realisation. The enhanced amount of

compensation shall be paid to the appellants by the respondents

within 30 days of the receipt of this order by depositing the same in

this Court.

11. The appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.

A copy of this order be sent to the respondents by the Registry

forthwith to ensure compliance.

REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 27, 2011